The Problem with Written Constitution

Geez, we are not so sure about the problem with the written constitution. Whether the constitution is written or not, it doesn’t matter right ?

For us, the underlying main problem is the constitutionalism. Having written constitution doesn’t mean that your country is systematic enough, and having no written constitution ( unwritten constitution ) also doesn’t mean that your country is in wreak-havoc.

It is just a matter of constitutionalism or not. Am I right ?

Subjectively, we see that there are 3 situations.

1.       Having written constitution – having constitutionalism

2.       Having written constitution – having no constitutionalism

3.       Having no written constitution - ? ( need to ask miss Fisha again lol )

Let’s say there is a country A, and it has the written constitution. Now, at this stake, it depends on the ruler also. The ruler want to follow the constitution or not, it depends.

“should not be taken to mean that if a state has a constitution, it is necessarily committed to the idea of constitutionalism. In a very real sense… every state may be said to have a constitution, since every state has institutions which are at the very least expected to be permanent, and every state has established ways of doing things." But even with a "formal written document labeled 'constitution' which includes the provisions customarily found in such a document, it does not follow that it is committed to constitutionalism. “ ~ David Fellman